DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in restricting the disallowance. The CIT(A)'s order was considered a speaking order that provided reasons for the deletion after considering the AO's reduced disallowance and the assessee's submissions.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a significant portion of sub-contractor expenses, deeming them bogus due to non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to a much smaller amount after considering further details and a remand report from the AO.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the genuineness of sub-contractor expenses and whether the AO erred in disallowing them based on non-receipt of replies to notices. The Tribunal also considered the AO's reduced disallowance in the remand report and the CIT(A)'s decision to accept additional evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 133(6),Section 37,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.328 citing361 ITR 220 · 2014 · HC
- CIT v. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd.120 citing204 Taxmann 106 · 2011 · HC
- CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd.85 citing332 ITR 396 · 2011 · HC · Read judgment
- Tek Ram v. CIT44 citing262 CTR 118 · 2013 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Hewlett Packard India37 citing202 Taxmann 262 · 2009 · HC · Read judgment
- Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jagdish18 citing145 Taxmann.com 414 · 2022 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 04.07.2024 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 05.07.2024 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the 3 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Head 9 Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- DCIT, New Delhi vs M/S. Jitf Waterways Ltd., New DelhiDelhi20 Nov 2018Remanded
Also relies on CIT v. Hewlett Packard India and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions for admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A and that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh ex...
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Goldendunes Heights LLP, JaipurJaipur23 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Hewlett Packard India and 1 other authority
The Tribunal, by referencing various High Court judgments, held that once the assessee proves the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, the burden shifts to the Revenue to ...
- DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs Paradise Properties, Sarojni Marg, JaipurJaipur11 Sept 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Hewlett Packard India and 1 other authority
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds related to unsecured loans and interest thereon, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion. However, the ground concerning rental receipts was allowed for statistical purposes, remandin...
- Saptarshi Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-Ward 8 (1)(1), MumbaiMumbai22 Mar 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Hewlett Packard India and 1 other authority
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding cash deposits and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO's appeal was dismissed.
- Shri Mahesh Yadav, A-225, Jai Nagar, Sikar… vs ITO Ward-4(3), Jaipur, Ward-4(3)Jaipur28 Jan 2021Remanded
Also relies on CIT v. Hewlett Packard India and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence and in not deciding the issue on merits. The non-submission of a remand report by the AO was used to the disadvantage of the assessee.
More judgments on Section 133(6)
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Ritu Rajesh Gohil, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs ITO Ward 2(1), Jamnagar, GujaratITA 109/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
